Justice Krishna Dixit of the Karnataka High Court wrote that he found a woman's statement alleging rape "a bit difficult to believe". Dixit asked why the woman had gone "to her office at night - at 11pm"; why had she "not objected to consuming drinks with him"; and why she had allowed him "to stay with her till morning".
"The explanation offered by her that after the perpetration of the act she was tired and fell asleep is unbecoming of an Indian woman," the judge said, adding that it was "not the way our women react when they are ravished".
His remarks set off a storm of protest. Outraged Indians asked if there was a "rulebook" or a "guide" to being a rape victim. An illustration was widely shared online which, drawing on several recent court rulings, mocked up "An Indian judge's guide to being the ideal rape survivor".
Aparna Bhat, a senior Delhi-based lawyer, wrote an open letter to the chief justice of India and the three female judges of the Supreme Court in response to the ruling. "Is there a protocol for rape victims to follow post the incident which is written in the law that I am not aware of?" she wrote. "Are 'Indian women' an exclusive class who have unmatched standards post being violated?" Bhat added that the judge's remarks showed "misogyny at its worst."
Madhu Bhushan, a women's rights activist in Bangalore, where the Karnataka high court is located, described the language used by the judge as "shocking" and absolutely uncalled for. "His comments are objectionable at several levels," she told the BBC. "What does he mean by 'our women'? And 'ravished'? It's so Victorian, so outdated, it takes away from the seriousness of the issue, which is violence against women. It's preposterous to say women don't behave like this. It has nothing to do with law, it's judging her behaviour," she said.
Bhushan is among dozens of civil liberties activists, writers, actors, singers and journalists who wrote an open letter to Justice Dixit saying his ruling had "deeply disturbed and disappointed" activists and demanding that he expunge the comments. "Women who make decisions to live independently and make choices regarding their own lives, including their intimate/ sexual lives are still viewed as women with loose morals and character," the letter said.
Rape and sexual crimes have been in the spotlight in India since 2012, when the brutal gang rape - and the subsequent death - of a young woman on a bus in Delhi sparked days of protests and made global headlines. According to government data, thousands of rapes take place every year in the country and the numbers have been rising over the years. Recent figures from the National Crime Records Bureau show police registered 33,977 cases of rape in 2018 - an average of a rape every 15 minutes. And campaigners say the actual number is much higher, because cases of sexual violence are grossly under reported.
This is not the first time the Indian judiciary has been criticized of being patriarchal and misogynistic. In a a 2017 ruling, judges castigated a gang-rape victim for drinking beer, smoking, taking drugs and keeping condoms in her room, and called her "promiscuous". At the time, Supreme Court lawyer Karuna Nundy said the ruling implied the woman "had no right not to be raped".
And in a 2016 case, a woman who had alleged abduction and gang-rape was questioned about her "noticeably unusual conduct" and her movements after the assault. "Instead of hurrying back home in a distressed, humiliated and a devastated state, she stayed back in and around the place of occurrence," the judge in the case said, adding that the fact that "she was accustomed to sexual intercourse… before the incident also has its own implication". These are just two examples from a long list of cases over the decades where the Indian judiciary has shamed the victims of rape and sexual assault.
In 1983, the parliament amended the rape law, shifting the burden of proof from the victim to the accused and stating that the past sexual history of the victim should not be a factor. But 40 years later, the comments of Justice Dixit and other judges finding fault with the behavior of victims show that the past sexual history of a woman is still a factor in many courts adjudicating rape cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment